With the health care debate still
fresh in their minds, the justices of the Supreme Court considered oral
arguments for and against Arizona’s SB 1070, the state’s inhibited immigration
law, during last week. Also known as Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe
Neighborhoods Act, the legislation is meant to crack down on illegal
immigration by granting Arizona police officers the power to check immigration
status of any individual if “reasonable suspicion” exists when enforcing other
laws. After the Obama administration voiced opposition against SB 1070, federal
courts blocked three more major provisions of the law following its
enactment in 2010. Last week, the law reappeared in the Supreme Court to
consider whether it is constitutional for Arizona to enforce. As expected, the solicitor
general of the Obama administration, Donald Verrilli, argued against the law on
the basis that immigration, a form of foreign policy, lies under the
authority of the federal government as designated by the Constitution.
Surprisingly, both conservative and liberal justices questioned the
argument and stance of the national government. Arizona’s governor, Jan Brewer,
took their skepticism as a victory for the state and SB 1070, which she
previously signed.
Other
states, such as Georgia, Alabama, and Utah, have passed similar laws, which are
currently being challenged by lower courts. The governor of Arizona raised an
important issue about the states’ struggle for stricter immigration laws: "This
case is not just about Arizona… It's about the fundamental principle of
federalism, under which these states have a right to defend their people."
As a federalist nation, America grants states the power to act within the
constraints of their borders to resolve their own problems. The year before
Arizona passed SB 1070, the expense of providing illegal immigrants with
benefits, such as education, health care, and welfare, amounted to $2.7 billion
for state taxpayers. As a border state, Arizona has become a major center of
illegal immigration, high crime rates, and smuggling. The state has faced these
problems for years while the federal government has failed to agree on or pass
any major immigration reform legislation in past decades. Although this is a
national problem, the issue of immigration is unique to each state, including
Arizona; enacting a national law would treat the situation as if it were the
same for each state. By passing SB 1070 in 2010, Arizona made the decision to protect
its people and relieve the state of its illegal immigration burden. Using its
power within federalism, Arizona was able to take matters into its own hands,
instead of relying on the national government to fix the state’s problem.
With the current Supreme Court
considerations, however, the state will be deprived of its original power and
the final fate of the law, due in June, will be in the hands of the national
government.
{[['
']]}
']]}